If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Muslim protesters torch Buddhist temples

Originally Posted by Zehahaha

As for the death penalty thing, it is a misunderstanding, I'll try to sum it as much as possible, Arabic is a complex language with many many words, the word " الردَّة " means apostasy, but there's two things to take into account : " الخروج من الإسلام " which means not believing in Islam anymore and " الخروج على الإسلام " which means scheming against Islam and trying to hurt the muslim community. For the first case, there's no penalty at all, it is an individual choice that is made by the person, in which he didn't intend any harm to the community, the second case is the opposite, as he does intend to harm the community, in which the death penalty is the punishement.

That's probably your interpretation. However, the historic details point to a different meaning. The most reasonable examples to consider are:
1. Muhammad's example
After gaining a large number of followers, Muhammad returned to Mecca to take over the city and cleanse it from pagan idols --> to me this sounds like an offensive technique rather than a defensive one.
2. The rule of force implemented by the Ottoman empire (which was an Islamic organization at core)
I'm not even going to mention which methods have been applied when conquering the countries from South East Europe , North Africa and Arabia.

Re: Muslim protesters torch Buddhist temples

Originally Posted by Ancy

That's probably your interpretation. However, the historic details point to a different meaning. The most reasonable examples to consider are:
1. Muhammad's example
After gaining a large number of followers, Muhammad returned to Mecca to take over the city and cleanse it from pagan idols --> to me this sounds like an offensive technique rather than a defensive one.
2. The rule of force implemented by the Ottoman empire (which was an Islamic organization at core)
I'm not even going to mention which methods have been applied when conquering the countries from South East Europe , North Africa and Arabia.

I actually didnt want to get into this but I'm bored so...And you were mixing a discussion about apostasy with other stuff.

1) This has no bearing on apostasy. The people in Mecca were not Muslims. Nevertheless you are also simplifying what was a a state of war at the time and the invasion and conquest of Mecca was a result of the breaking of the treaty of Hudaybiyyah. The destruction of the idols was an act of war, it was also used to signify an important aspect for the prophet, that his god was the true path.

To expand, the pagan gods of Mecca were considered to be the protectors of the city, the resulting conquest of Mecca and destruction of the idols was to signify that they do not exist that this muslim god was superior and for the Quraysh especially to accept that their gods could no longer protect them. It was this point that brought - along with the clemency - converted many former enemies like Abu Sufyan to Islam. It was a brilliant stroke of political manoeuvring.

2) This has nothing to do with apostasy. The Ottomans for example began their conquests 7 centuries after the death of the prophet. The Ottomans were conquering countries because they believed they were former Muslims and deserved death? No.

The results and actions of any Islamic state (of which there were many) are political actions that should be seen in the same light as any empire or kingdom that has existed. The need to expand, subjugate and conquer are motives used by men who seek power, glory and riches. The brutality of Christian colonial empires are not a reflection of Christianity. They are a reflection of the adherents of that religion at that particular time. It is the same thing.

Like any empire at the time they were fought wars and subjugated people. So was Timur in his conquests. Or Babur etc. In contrast, the expansion of Islam into East Africa and South East Asia were peaceful and through trade. The spread of Islam was at times peaceful and at times completely brutal. These are not a result of a religious ideal but human nature.